Workplace ostracism and employees’ affective commitment: testing the role of resource depletion and psychological safety

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theoretical model of the study. Note: Dotted lines reflect mediation effects.

Table 1. Results of confirmatory factor analyses (measurement model).

	CMIN/df	CFI	TLI	IFI	RMSEA
Confirmatory factor analyses (workplace ostracism)
Second order (linguistic ostracism, general ostracism, cyber ostracism, information ostracism)	1.93	.95	.94	.95	.06
Four-factor (linguistic ostracism, general ostracism, cyber ostracism, information ostracism)	2.03	.94	.92	.94	.06
One-factor (linguistic ostracism, general ostracism, cyber ostracism, information ostracism)	5.36	.73	.70	.74	.13
Confirmatory factor analyses (all study measures)
Four-factor (workplace ostracism, resource depletion, psychological safety, affective commitment)	1.73	.92	.91	.92	.05
One-factor (workplace ostracism, resource depletion, psychological safety, affective commitment)	4.07	.64	.61	.64	.11

df: degree of freedom; CFI: comparative fit index; IFI: incremental fit index; RMSEA: root mean squared error of approximation.

Note: Indices that are better fit are shown in bold.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Workplace ostracism (Time 1)	2.40	.92	(0.89)
2. Resource depletion (Time 2)	3.99	1.29	.66**	(0.89)
3. Psychological safety (Time 2)	2.73	.62	−.48**	−.67**	(0.74)
4. Affective commitment (Time 3)	3.66	1.34	−.53**	−.44**	.45**	(0.89)

Note: N = 271; Cronbach’s alpha values are presented along the diagonal in parentheses.

**p < 0.01

Figure 2. Hypothesis testing results. Note: Dotted lines reflect mediation (indirect) effects. Significant Beta values are presented.

Table 3. Mediation effects of resource depletion (Time 2) in the relationship between workplace ostracism (Time 1) and affective commitment (Time 3).

Variable		B	SE	t	p
Direct and total effects
Affective commitment regressed on workplace ostracism (path c, total effect)		−.77	.08	−10.19	.000
Resource depletion regressed on workplace ostracism (path a)		.92	.06	14.36	.000
Affective commitment regressed on resource depletion controlling for workplace ostracism (path b)		−.17	.07	−2.44	.015
Affective commitment regressed on workplace ostracism controlling for resource depletion (path c′, direct effect)		−.61	.09	−6.13	.000
B	SE	LL 95% CI		UL 95% CI
Indirect effect using bootstrap
−.16	.07	−.30		−.02

LL: lower limit; CI: confidence interval; UL: upper limit.

Note: N = 271. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5000.

Table 4. Mediation effects of psychological safety (Time 2) in the relationship between workplace ostracism (Time 1) and affective commitment (Time 3).

Variable		B	SE	t	p
Direct and total effects
Affective commitment regressed on workplace ostracism (path c, total effect)		−.77	.08	−10.19	.000
Psychological safety regressed on workplace ostracism (path a)		−.32	.04	−8.85	.000
Affective commitment regressed on psychological safety controlling for workplace ostracism (path b)		.57	.12	4.61	.000
Affective commitment regressed on workplace ostracism controlling for psychological safety (path c′, direct effect showing mediation)		−.59	.08	−7.11	.000
B	SE	LL 95% CI		UL 95% CI
Indirect effect using bootstrap
−.18	.05	−.28		−.09

LL: lower limit; CI: confidence interval; UL: upper limit.

Note. N = 271. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5000.

Data availability statement

The data may be available upon request.